Pentax announced on Thursday that it plans to release an entirely new compact interchangeable lens digital camera even smaller than the current crop of mirrorless Micro Four Thirds system cameras from the likes of Olympus and Panasonic. Dubbed the Pentax Q, the camera is built around a 1/2.33" image sensor more commonly found in compact point-and-shoot cameras. This allows for a tiny form factor and even smaller lenses, though it comes with an image quality compromise that might turn off shooters that would ostensibly appreciate the benefits of interchangeable lenses.

The Pentax Q camera is slightly larger than a credit card in size and just under an inch and a quarter thick (3.9 x 2.3 x 1.2", to be exact). That is comparable to many compact digital cameras available today. Our friends at Imaging Resource gained access to a pre-production sample and took a few photos to illustrate just how small it really is.

Unlike most compact digital cameras, however, the Pentax Q has a tiny bayonet mount which accepts new Q-mount Pentax lenses. The camera is expected to hit the US in September, and at launch there will be five different lenses available. A compact 8.5mm f/1.9 standard prime lens—approximately 47mm equivalent with a 5.5x crop factor—will be sold with the camera as a kit. Pentax will also offer a 5-15mm zoom lens (28-80mm equiv.), a fisheye lens, and wide angle (35mm equiv.) and telephoto (100mm equiv.) "toy" lenses that mimic the vignetting and variable sharpness of classic Holga or Diana plastic cameras. That particular style has been made extremely popular by the likes of Instagram, Hipstamatic, and Camera Bag on iOS devices.

The 12MP Sony sensor at the heart of the Pentax Q.

At the heart of the camera is a 12 megapixel, backside illuminated Sony CMOS sensor. Its tiny 1/2.33" size means tiny, noisy pixels, but Pentax spokesperson Chris Pound told Ars that the backside illumination should compensate for the small sensor size. In fact, Imaging Resource told Ars that images from its pre-production sample compare favorably to the Canon G12 even at high ISO settings. That's high praise for such a tiny camera—the sensor in the G12 is larger and has 2 million fewer pixels, so backside illumination clearly offers a major advantage.

Pentax could have used a larger sensor for better performance still, but that would have resulted in a larger camera and larger lenses. "The 1/2.33" sensor allowed us to achieve our goal of building the world's smallest and lightest interchangeable lens camera," Pound explained. "Using an existing mount would have resulted in concessions on size, which we didn't want for the Q."

Here the size of the Pentax Q is compared to some other popular mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.

The sensor also includes an anti-shake mounting that provides image stabilization functions as well as the ability to shake loose dust that gets inside the camera.

The Pentax Q is built using a lightweight, durable magnesium alloy. It also features a 460K pixel 3" rear LCD display for framing and viewing images. And it includes many of the common automatic and manual exposure modes found on higher end compacts and DSLRs. Some interesting built-in functions include a bokeh control and in-camera HDR shooting. Like most digital cameras, it also has the ability to shoot digital video at 1080p HD resolution. And the camera can be configured to shoot in 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, and square aspect ratios.

As a photographic tool, the Q certainly covers a lot of bases, and its tiny size is simply incomparable to any other interchangeable lens camera available. While its interchangeable lens system might appeal to more demanding shooters that lament the sorry state of digicam zooms, though, the image quality from its tiny sensor might not satisfy those same shooters. "Put the Q's images next to those from even a Micro Four Thirds camera, and the larger sensor wins hands down," Imaging Resource's Dave Etchells told Ars.

The sheer novelty of the Pentax will likely attract some buyers, but an honest evaluation of the final shipping product will show whether the image quality is worth the price and the added hassle of carrying additional lenses. Ultimately we're left with an impression of a digital version of Pentax's 110 SLR of the early 80s—an excellent camera that made the best of the limitations of 110 films tiny format, but never quite became a resounding commercial success. Still, the gadget geek in us is definitely piqued.

Combining the poor image quality, noise & flat depth of field of a compact sensor with the inconvenience, bulk & cost of separate lenses with a proprietary mount? A serious compact like an LX5 or Oly XZ-1 seems like it would be a much better choice for most folks...

Combining the poor image quality, noise & flat depth of field of a compact sensor with the inconvenience, bulk & cost of separate lenses with a proprietary mount? A serious compact like an LX5 or Oly XZ-1 seems like it would be a much better choice for most folks...

I'd generally agree with you, but I think Pentax is aware they are aiming at a small niche with this camera. Otherwise they would have priced it more aggressively than $800. Pretty sure you can get a decent digital Rebel kit at that price, or some of the cheaper MFT cameras.

I'm willing to bet it sells well in the Asian market where Pentax has always done well with its really compact cameras. I'll be honest, the novelty factor alone is enough to make me consider getting one. Though frankly, I use my iPhone 4 for about 90% of my shooting these days, and only pull out the Canon DSLR or Olympus EPL1 for occasional pro/photojournalism work.

I may not need it personally, but I think it's a great idea. If they can drum up a lens equivalent to the awesome walk-around 18-200mm Nikon zoom, even better. I'm looking forward to seeing actual images from the device.

Seriously? Its lens line up consists of "toy" lenses that mimic shitty lenses on shitty hipster cameras? And that's a selling point?

Also, given the small sensor size (and the huge depth of field that implies), manual controls for aperture are virtually useless, just like every other small sensored camera out there. You will have no control over depth of field. Do you want huge depth of field, or merely large depth of field?

If it has sharp, large aperture lenses available (and the 8.5mm f1.9 sounds like it has potential), then it might make a good point and shoot for low light conditions. Also, at a 5.5x crop factor, a 1000mm equivalent lens would only be ~180mm, which could make a nice compact wildlife/telephoto camera. The large depth of field would actually be an advantage.

I'll be interested to see if any adapters appear that allow other SLR lenses to be mounted. That's one advantage the current crop of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras have. Adapters for that purpose are relatively easier to make (compared to adapters that allow you to mount different system's lenses on your dSLR). Again, that might provide outstanding telephoto performance using available lenses.

Still...with all my bitching, I do have to say...Squeeee!!! It's sooo cute!!!

I don't think that it's a coincidence that this camera has exactly the same dimensions (sans lens) as the Canon S95, which is a very well-reviewed compact camera. It also has a similar weight, even with the kit lens (235g for the Q w/lens vs. 193 for the S95).

In fact, it looks to me like Pentax's goal was to create an interchangeable-lens version of the S95. However, based on the pics, it looks like the kit lens probably still sticks out too much to be pocketable. Plus, the S95 comes with a 28-105mm equiv zoom at that weight, while the Q's best zoom is only 27.5-83.0mm equiv, and looks huge (plus it costs $300 extra). Also, the Q is twice as expensive as the S95, and has a smaller sensor (5.62x crop factor for the Q, vs. 4.55x for the S95).

The "toy lens" thing scares me, too. To me, it kind of implies that they couldn't make a decent set of lenses, so instead, they said "Oh, let's just make it a selling point!"

I don't think that it's a coincidence that this camera has exactly the same dimensions (sans lens) and same size sensor as the Canon S95, which is a very well-reviewed compact camera. It also has a similar weight, even with the kit lens (235g for the Q w/lens vs. 193 for the S95).

I don't think that it's a coincidence that this camera has exactly the same dimensions (sans lens) and same size sensor as the Canon S95, which is a very well-reviewed compact camera. It also has a similar weight, even with the kit lens (235g for the Q w/lens vs. 193 for the S95).

Which is its only selling-point. If you want a camera you can put in your pocket the S95 and LX5 are superior in every conceivable fashion. I just can't see any point in this at all. As AER said, including 'toy' lenses as part of its initial line-up is very revealing of the problems Pentax faced making decent optics for it. If you really want to go for the toy lens hipster-crapomatic look you can just barf over your images in Photoshop anyway.

Hmm. I still think that the old Auto 110 could be properly revived. (And, Pentax has done a similar mount, System 10, which has had fairly decent lenses - 18mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8 (the size of a soda bottle cap), 50mm f/2.8, 70mm f/2.8, and a 20-40mm f/2.8 zoom. 110 has the same 2x crop factor as Four Thirds.)

So, a Four Thirds sensor has the same image area as 110 film. Lay the electronics out properly internally, figure out a way to add autofocus to System 10, and there you go. (System 10 uses a weird, weird shutter - the shutter is a two-blade diaphragm. Shutter speed is the only thing the camera has control over (and, the Auto 110, to simplify user interface, didn't even give manual control of that). Slower than a certain shutter speed, the camera is wide open. Faster than that, the diaphragm is effectively closing up.)

As AER said, including 'toy' lenses as part of its initial line-up is very revealing of the problems Pentax faced making decent optics for it. If you really want to go for the toy lens hipster-crapomatic look you can just barf over your images in Photoshop anyway.

Could you link to the sample images you've taken that have allowed you to make informed judgements of the image quality?

As AER said, including 'toy' lenses as part of its initial line-up is very revealing of the problems Pentax faced making decent optics for it. If you really want to go for the toy lens hipster-crapomatic look you can just barf over your images in Photoshop anyway.

Could you link to the sample images you've taken that have allowed you to make informed judgements of the image quality?

Looks like you failed Snark 101.

Where's the 70-200mm equivalent? Where's the f/2.8 wide-angles? Where's the 60mm macro lens? When a new lens system launches with a line-up consisting of a short consumer zoom, a moderately-fast prime and three toy lenses (a non-rectilinear fisheye is nothing more than a novelty), that's a clear sign that you shouldn't go expecting to get decent optics.

The image quality from the sensor is likely to be what you'd expect from a 1/2.33" device. Back-lit sensors in other cameras have shown minor improvements over conventional designs at the same size, this won't be any different.

As a full time photographer/videographer for my company shooting demolition projects, workers, interviews, political visits, etc. I'm always looking for a small 'derringer' camera that I can whip out in an emergency for a quick or discrete shot. Sometimes I'm literally jumping out of the truck and running while someone else grabs the gear because corporate forgot to tell us something major was happening (I actually fimed an electric tower demo on the fly this way and got into position 5 seconds BEFORE it dropped - man did I chew out the project lead that time). No time for tripods, location scouting, lens swaps, or setting up secondary and tertiary camera. Just point and shoot. Or the 'gotta climb the 600+ foot water tower and don't want to drag alot of equipment along situations. This camera size wise would be great for those 'there's no time just shoot' situations but the interchangable lens removes this from the equation for me. Which is a shame because I like Pentax and wouldn't mind adding one to the arsenal (especially since my vintage 70mm Pentax bit the dust awhile back) to replace my aging Powershot.

I want the digital equivalent of the classic Olympus Stylus Epic; a m43 camera with a fixed prime.

I almost have one, an E-PL2 with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, but the Stylus is still a tad smaller and lighter. The next generation of m43 cameras should rival the Stylus Epic.

Yes, a digital Stylus Epic would be... well, epic.

Man, I had a Stylus Epic that I loaned to my mom and never got back. That is one film camera I really miss.I also miss the rare black Pentax MX I had with a 40/2.8 pancake that I loaned to someone and never got back.

Moral of this story: Stylus Epic awesome; don't lend your favorite equipment to friends or family if you ever want it back.

Canon did something similar with the A60/A70 models. While the Pentax here is much smaller, I think the same problem will occur. A small camera with the ability to change lenses is nice, but people who want a small camera will be better served with something that doesn't require lens changes (thus maintaining a low profile) and people who need the lens changes would be much better served by an SLR style camera. Try to be both things at once makes for a very mediocre product.

Moral of this story: Stylus Epic awesome; don't lend your favorite equipment to friends or family if you ever want it back.

I think nostalgia clouds some peoples memory. The Stylus Epic was the film camera I owned as I was transitioning to digital. Vastly over-rated in some folks memory IMO.

Other than small size, it was merely adequate. It had worse shutter lag than any digital I have ever used. Digitals let you remove shutter lag with a half-press prefocus. The Stylus Epic would only get range/exposure with the half press. When you released the shutter you would get the lag as the lens then moved into position for focus and then released the shutter. Horrid system. Other than that I recall it having no Controls at all. Basically a fixed 35mm, Auto P&S with horrible lag and no controls. Exactly what is so great about that?

Something like a Canon S95 would be massively preferable to a Stylus Epic IMO. Smaller, with a full range of exposure controls (manual, Aperture Pri, Shutter Pri, Auto), sharp lens with very usable zoom range(28-105 equiv)+image stabilization. The Epic has long been surpassed by quality digital compacts.

It's not a large sensor camera. It's a small sensor camera. That should tell you everything you need to know about its performance and image quality. The fact that the lens is interchangeable or not is immaterial.

Overall i think this is a great little piece of kit for casual photography, much better than an iPhone. I think that's the market they are trying to grab. people like me that don't want to carry around another device, but would prefer at least a step up from a fixed FL lens like the iPhone. No it's not a D2. you guys get over it. I shoot fashion regularly, but personally I never use my SLR's and end up using my iPhone, but I have to say this is probably much better than the iPhone.

The toy lens idea is kitchy, but at the same time it's only 3 of the lenses in the lineup

This whole fetish with large sensors is kind of silly. Especially in the prosumer market. So long as the lenses are in proportion to the image sensor it matters little. DOF is much more of a problem when we attempted to use 35MM optics with a sensor a fraction of the size of a true 35mm film frame. There are plenty examples and dissertations on the web of how 4/ 3 image sensors are not automatically superior to 1/3. Even the RED scarlet is slated to use the 1/3 chip. It's all ratio's and formula's. If the lens is properly matched to the sensor the problem can be mitigated. Besides 4/3 is actually closer to 35mm motion picture aspect ratio than it is closer to 35mm still.

AER wrote:

GeoSixPack wrote:

If it has sharp, large aperture lenses available (and the 8.5mm f1.9 sounds like it has potential), then it might make a good point and shoot for low light conditions.

I think that the 5.62x crop factor also applies to the aperture, though, so the nice F/1.9 becomes a crappy f/10.678.

Aperture is the ratio of focal length to the effective aperture diameter. So 1.9 is 1.9. Haven't you ever noticed how cheap lenses are 2.8 wide and f4 when they are zoomed in. Longer focal lengths need a much larger effective aperture diameter to gather the same light. That's why the front elements are so large on 200mm and 400mm 2.8 lenses. It's also why they are expensive. Big glass without imperfections is harder to make.

Moral of this story: Stylus Epic awesome; don't lend your favorite equipment to friends or family if you ever want it back.

I think nostalgia clouds some peoples memory. The Stylus Epic was the film camera I owned as I was transitioning to digital. Vastly over-rated in some folks memory IMO.

Other than small size, it was merely adequate. It had worse shutter lag than any digital I have ever used. Digitals let you remove shutter lag with a half-press prefocus. The Stylus Epic would only get range/exposure with the half press. When you released the shutter you would get the lag as the lens then moved into position for focus and then released the shutter. Horrid system. Other than that I recall it having no Controls at all. Basically a fixed 28mm, Auto P&S with horrible lag and no controls. Exactly what is so great about that?

Something like a Canon S95 would be massively preferable to a Stylus Epic IMO. Smaller, with a full range of exposure controls (manual, Aperture Pri, Shutter Pri, Auto), sharp lens with very usable zoom range(28-105 equiv)+image stabilization. The Epic has long been surpassed by quality digital compacts.

The point is to make the camera smaller and sensor larger. Make the s95 with an aps-c and I'm sold. My pockets haven't gotten smaller, so a m43 with fixed embedded prime would be perfect. In other words, an X100 but smaller.

I almost have one, an E-PL2 with a Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, but the Stylus is still a tad smaller and lighter. The next generation of m43 cameras should rival the Stylus Epic.

Well, I think the Panasonic Lumix GF3 and the Sony NEX-C3 have really reached the limits of how small cameras made for their respective mounts can get. And since you already have one of the nicest lenses of this segment, I think if you switch to the GF3 you're set.

As for the Q, as others have mentioned the craptastically small sensor kinda kills any potential appeal for me. The Canon S95 / Lumix LX5 / Olympus XZ-1 look like much better choices overall, and they have larger sensors too.